“Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder.” That’s how the saying goes. But what if that eye
keeps changing?
As someone who’s in recovery from disordered eating
and image issues, I’m inundated with the physical image factor. In my childhood,
like many other females, I wholeheartedly believed beauty looked a certain
way…and that estimation was an unchanging, certain gospel. And, of course, the
lion’s share of that gospel message
was a thin aesthetic. That’s part of what contributed to my dicey experiences
with anorexia, bulimia, binge eating and diabolical self-loathing.
Over ten years ago, I just scratched the surface of
these issues when my book, “Thin Enough: My Spiritual Journey Through the
Living Death of an Eating Disorder” was published. Now, however, I’m not only
navigating through my dysfunctional body
image potpourri, but I’m also encountering females, younger and younger,
plagued by it as well. Perhaps, once upon a time, only teenagers and young
adults were predominantly vulnerable to eating disorders. However, now, it affects
children who are afraid to “get fat.”
Still, an insidious issue impacting the female gender
is specifically linked to beauty. Think about it. From the time we hear our
first fairytale or see an animated depiction of it, princesses, heroines and good fairies are beautiful. And
part of that beauty involves their slim bodies. “No fat girls allowed” appears
to be the message indoctrinated, early on, into the female gender’s value
system. For all of the supposed strides we’ve made with body acceptance,
diversity and beauty definitions, come on, let’s get real; the thin standard is
still the look we flock to the most. It’s a default beauty setting.
But it has not always been this way. Part of the
recovery work I do is exploring and discussing the ever changing beauty
image. Most of the time, young girls
come to me fully convinced only an emaciated image is attractive. Since they
are not that image naturally, they often develop eating disorder behaviors to
achieve that look. And, of course, they reject themselves during the entire process.
Often, unfortunately, these females are unaware of and immune to the reality of
changing image.
Discovering this reality of the ever changing beauty
aesthetic can, indeed, be liberating. There have been varied definitions existing
throughout time. And the meaning they possess reaches beyond the actual image
itself. It’s about representation and dangled promises. Therefore, awareness of these beauty trends and their
representations may be a key to more accepting self-perceptions. The
application of knowledge IS power- and toward a healthier and happier life to
boot.
So, let’s take a stroll down beauty history lane and
see what images were heralded as the “must have” look.
We begin with the 17th century artist, Sir Peter
Paul Rubens. He was obsessed with the voluptuous female figure in his work, including
his ode to the spectacular derriere, “The Three Graces” (1635).
This was long before Jennifer Lopez.
“Rubenesque” women possessed rounded backsides, breasts and abdomens, all representing
prosperity. Their bodies looked like that because
they could afford to eat well. And hey, wealth has always been attractive,
right?
And, speaking of wealth, what about 19th century’s corset trend?
The tiny waist was in demand as it exemplified well-bred beauty, again, associated
with the rich crowd.
So, “Tight Lacers” were born. A
little ditty from the time period…
“In my hourglass corset I’m laced every day. My
little wasp waist is shrinking away. The stays squeeze me inwards so small and
so nice, in a pattern of lacing that grips like a vice.”
Yes, women often fainted while pursuing this beauty trend. And this was just one
of the various health complications experienced while striving to be a tight
lacer. Some women suffered serious harm to their internal organs as whalebone
corsets actually reshaped their bodies
to the rigid form of the undergarment.
Delightful.
Next, we enter the 1900’s,
complete with its moving pictures. We have our first film star, Mary Pickford,
“America’s Sweetheart.” With her head full of ringlets, she resembled a
porcelain doll; there
was no hint of sexuality- or womanly curves. Simple, uncomplicated and
reassuringly girlish, Pickford embodied the easily controlled female. Her
helpless beauty signaled to all she needed to be taken care of.
So, when the
roaring twenties with its notorious flapper exploded, it was an unsettling game
changer. Now, all traces of the virginal ingénue were gone. In her place,
instead, was the rebellious, sexually free party girl. She smoked cigarettes
and drank booze. Her hair was bobbed short and her small busted silhouette exposed
a lot of leg in her short, fringe dresses. This look was a declaration of
independence.
But we’re
just getting warmed up.
With the
1930’s in full swing, here comes screen siren Marlene Dietrich. Often dressed in tailored men’s suits, she took
it a step further; she flirted with sexual identity. Both her style of dress and her body needed no one’s permission to look that way. Indeed, Hollywood was
clueless what to do with her
bisexuality. Everything is up for
grabs.
Which is, perhaps, why 1940’s war time returned us to the conventional
safety of the curvy female form. Betty Grable and Rita Hayworth were its notable
pinups, decorating fighter planes. Dependable depictions of traditional beauty
soothed us with Americana: Mom, God and apple pie. And, since there was the presence
of Rosie the Riveter in the workplace, filling the gap left by men in the
military, beauty, possibly needed to
be a traditionally safe feminine image.
And so, curves continued their popularity in the postwar 1950’s, as American
suburbia and family became the focus. Rosie the Riveter was required to be
domestic again. Women were encouraged to be wives and mothers, while
exemplifying the ultimate feminine demeanor. So, now we celebrate our best known
sex symbol, Marilyn Monroe, as the ideal of womanhood.
And here’s a reality check, everyone; Marilyn was a size 14.
Still, it appears the curves of Betty, Rita and Marilyn had a limited
shelf life as, with the 1960’s, change comes again. Now we have Audrey Hepburn
from the 1961 film, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and First Lady, Jacqueline
Kennedy. There seems to be a streamlining occurring, exalting the thin female appearance.
And this lays still more groundwork
for the thin body type to solidify its presence as the 1960’s continue. Emerging
from Great Britain’s Mod scene is the model, Twiggy. Named for her stick-
like legs, she showcased short hair, painted on eyelashes and a gamine form. This
was a radical departure from the curvy association with feminine beauty. But perhaps
this trend’s message wasn’t strictly about fashion. Could it be that during
this turbulent decade, with the Vietnam War, civil rights and a strong baby
boomer presence, curves were now seen as antiquated and irrelevant?
Regardless, image trends continue to change.
Next, the 1970’s promoted the “natural girl;” this included models Lauren
Hutton and Cheryl Tiegs. The standard emphasized health food, nature and less
make up. Maybe, because of the disillusionment from the Vietnam War and
Watergate, there was an emphasis on being real. The less artifice, the less
smoke and mirrors, perhaps, the better.
Contrast that “less is more” trend
with that of the excessive 1980’s; fashion, image and lifestyle are all larger than life. “Supermodels”
Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell were two of its dominant icons, driving the frenzy to be “model thin.”
And the 1980’s fitness explosion certainly
did nothing to discourage that sentiment. Jane Fonda’s aerobic workout
tapes fed a lucrative diet and fitness industry which validated the decade’s
doctrines: “You can never be too rich or
too thin,” “Feel the burn” and “No pain, no gain.”
So, once the 1990’s and Seattle’s music scene arrived, yet again, there
seemed to be a gigantic shift. Grunge bands, Nirvana and Pearl Jam wore flannel
shirts and were disinterested in glamour. Were we, therefore, moving into an
era unaffected by physical appearance?
Not so fast. For now, we have “Heroin Chic.” This look embraced Grunge’s flannel
on its fashion pages and runways, via its emaciated muse, Kate Moss. Designers
like Calvin Klein courted controversy for their use of Moss and similar waif-looking
models. Ads were filled with provocative imagery which often suggested drug use
and child pornography.
So, the beauty image continues to have a disturbing, ever changing, go of
things.
And yes, those changes continue into the Millennium. With the information
age, surely, now, we can embrace a healthy
and accurate view of image?
Right? Right?
Perhaps. Yes,
there has been some body type diversification
in this new century. Celebrities like Jennifer Lopez, Kate Winslet and Beyonce
are famous for their prominent derrieres. Yet, despite their “fuller figures,” there
is still the emphasis on svelte and toned frames.
And this preoccupation ushered
in yet another troubling trend
post-2000: the “Scary Skinny” movement. Its goal was “Size 0,” and, in
some extremes, “negative sizes.”
Celebrities who experienced extreme weight loss, like former Spice Girl/style
icon, Victoria Beckham, actress, Lindsey Lohan and pop star, Lady Gaga have all
been held in question. Were they extremely thin because of healthy lifestyle choices or were they, in fact,
suffering from anorexia, bulimia and/or substance abuse? Speculation circulated.
But the severity of their appearances could not be denied: frail looking
frames, prominently jutting shoulder blades and the now disturbingly coveted
“thigh gaps.”
Ah, yes, here we go…thigh gaps…
With prominently hollowed
spaces between the legs, this trend currently
occupies many “thinsperation,” or “thinspo,” pro-eating disorder websites. It
is now a desired “beauty” image.
And, who knows what the next big beauty trend may be? It is coming, just as surely as any of
these other looks have arrived.
Image is cyclical. What is old is new again. “Retro” looks litter fashion
lines. There’s a hint of the 1940’s here, the 1960’s there. And so on and so
on…
All things are subject to change. That’s important to remember in any life issue. But the changing image factor
is certainly a fickle beast. And, yes, that beast changes its body image with
the fashion du jour.
Regardless, we need to be consistent with ourselves, to accept ourselves,
as ourselves.
Indeed, what remains a constant is how spectacular we already are.
Therefore, in all of your discovery about the ever changing image, please
discover that truth for yourself!
Copyright © 2018 by
Sheryle Cruse
No comments:
Post a Comment